ArticleCureus2024
An In Vitro Study of the Abrasive Potential of Various Toothbrushes on the Surface of Aligner Attachments.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Wear resistance of orthodontic attachments: a comparative analysis of different composite resins in clear aligner therapy.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of lower incisor intrusion using conventional method and frog staging protocol in clear aligners: A three-dimensional finite element analysis.Journal of orthodontic science · 2025Article
- In Vitro Analysis of Enamel Abrasion Using a Novel Manual Nano-Bristle Toothbrush: An Atomic Force Microscopy Study.Cureus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Attachments play a vital role in aligner-led orthodontic therapy, first passively through retention of the appliance and secondly, through bringing about tooth movement, by virtue of its active surfaces, to achieve treatment goals. Additionally, irregularities on the surface of attachments attract plaque adhesion. Thus the effect of brushing with different toothbrushes on the surface of attachments is an important factor to study. This would allow clinicians to better advise patients who are undergoing aligner therapy. Four types of brushes are available commercially, namely hard, medium, soft, and ultra-soft. This study analyses the interaction between the kind of toothbrush used and the wear of the surface of the aligner attachment, to understand the impact of a toothbrush on the attachment. Aim To observe the surface wear and change in the shape of the aligner attachment on brushing with four varying hardness of toothbrush bristle (ultra-soft, soft, medium, and hard) over six months to three years. Material and methods One attachment was bonded to the buccal surface of extracted premolars. One tooth with attachment was subjected to SEM analysis and the rest were divided into four groups of five teeth each, based on the type of toothbrush to be used. Brushing with hard, medium, soft, and ultra-soft toothbrushes was carried out in a brushing simulator in two cycles simulating six months, one year, 18 months, and three years of brushing. A contact profilometer was used to evaluate surface roughness before and after brushing and pre- and post-surface roughness values were compared to quantitate changes after which SEM analysis was carried out for qualitative assessment of the surface of the samples. The Shapiro-Wilks test was applied to evaluate the normality of the data, followed by the one-way ANOVA, and statistical significance was applied at p<0.05. Results At six months, the samples brushed with the medium toothbrush showed the least surface roughness (0.2±0.192) and those brushed with the ultra-soft toothbrushes showed the highest surface roughness (1.9±0.159). At one year, the samples brushed with the soft toothbrush showed the least surface roughness (0.46 ±0.31) and those brushed with the ultra-soft toothbrushes showed the highest surface roughness (2.12 ±0.12). At the 1.5-year point, the surface roughness of the samples was lowest in the ultra-soft toothbrush group (0.43±0.39) and the highest in the soft toothbrush group (1.6± 0.41). At the three-year point, the surface roughness of the samples was lowest in the ultra-soft toothbrush group (0.28 ± 0.17) and the highest in the medium toothbrush group (1.6 ± 0.31). Conclusion Ultra-soft toothbrushes have a high abrasive potential, as seen by higher surface roughness values over six months and one year. Morphometric changes were the most noticeable for attachments brushed by hard-bristled toothbrushes and medium-bristled brushes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.